Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you are just shilling for polluting billionaires. What an acidic thing to fling. I want us to build infrastructure. Nowhere did I say we need do whatever Musk says. I want us to use cost-benefit analysis to judge infrastructure projects rather than the heavy moral framing we get a lot.
It's a parody of your comment, which ascribes all environmental regulation to NIMBYs. If you blow a raspberry and someone blows a similar one right back at you, maybe you earned it.
>it's not clear if you know what environmental regulations are or if you are just shilling for polluting billionaires.
This is pretty clearly an escalation beyond what you're describing.
e: Because you did already read these lines, I guess I should spell this out: the former says we can't trust this datapoint as reflecting the issue we're concerned about; the latter says that the former person is either completely ignorant about the subject matter or lying due to corruption. The former is disagreeable; the latter is an ad hominem assuming bad faith against HN guidelines.